Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The present petitions seek to challenge this legislation on various grounds. In order to understand the significance of the challenge it is necessary to know the object, the scheme and the various provisions of the legislation. Before we refer to the various provisions of the Act and the Scheme made thereunder it would be necessary to know the genesis of the present legislation. The evil of the contract labour system in various industries and establishments for various occupations had become the rule of the day. In engineering, cotton textile, cement, paper, coir-matting, mining and even in Central and Provincial Public Works Departments, contract labour was employed on a large scale and the percentage of such labour varied from 10 to 25 of the total number of employees employed in the units. There were certain advantages gained by the employers on account of the engagement of the contract labour but there was a wide-spread feeling in responsible quarters that the disadvantages of the system were far more numerous and weightier. In particular, it was noticed that "the contract system enabled the employer to escape the provisions of most of the Labour Welfare Acts. Secondly, it enabled both the contractor as well as the employer to exploit the situation of wide-spread unemployment and hire workers at the lowest rates. The contractor was interested in securing them at comparatively cheap rates and the employer was interested in keeping his costs of labour down to the minimum. That resulted in unhealthy competition between the contractors supplying the contract labour to the ultimate disadvantage of the workers. Thirdly, since the contract system was found profitable to the employers, a tendency grew amongst the employers to engage contract labour in as many occupations and processes in the industry as they could. The result was that even in processes which were necessarily a part and parcel of the regular production and business activity, the employers tended to engage more and more contract labour resulting in wide-spread mal-practices of keeping a large army of casual workers on temporary basis for years together thus avoiding the payment of fair wages and the granting of the terminal benefits and other facilities such as leave, medical care, etc. to them. This was commented upon and condemned from time to time by various Committees and Commissions appointed to investigate into the conditions of labour, and recommendations were made from time to time to abolish the contract system particularly where the employment was regular and the processes and occupations in which the contract labour was engaged were essentially a part of the activities of the factories and establishments where they were employed. This demand for abolishing the contract labour led to the enactment of the Central Act called the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It applied to all establishments in which 20 or more workmen were employed and prohibited employment of contract labour in any processes, operations or other work in such establishments. The Act also made provisions for the welfare and health of contract labour and required the contractors to supply various facilities to the contract labour and also cast a corresponding responsibility on the employer who engaged such contract labour to supply the amenities where the contractor failed to do so. The Act also made the contractor responsible for payment of wages and also made the employer responsible for such payment of the wages remaining unpaid by the contractor. It appears that in spite of the enactment of the said legislation, certain occupations and processes continued to escape, the provisions of the said legislation. In particular, in this State certain sections of unprotected manual workers employed in certain employments continued to be exploited by the contractors and hence the State Government had to enact an Act called the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Mathadi Act). The Act came into force on June 13, 1969 and applied to the employments specified in the Schedule to the said Mathadi Act. The security guards or those who were discharging the duties of watch and ward staff however were not brought within the purview of this Act. In the meanwhile the Trade Union of the security guards in the State called the Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union Bombay, which is a party to this petition, (having been added as respondents on their application) made representations to the State Government and demanded the constitution of a separate Board on the lines of the Mathadi Boards under the Mathadi Act, for ensuring regular employment and human service conditions to the security guards employed in various factories and establishments in Greater Bombay and Thane Industrial Complex and to prevent their exploitation at the hands of the agents and agencies which were engaging them on a meagre salary and supplying them to various factories and establishments in that region. With a view to ascertain the extent of exploitation and also to collect data with regard to the prevalent service conditions of the security guards, the State Government conducted a rapid sample survey of the security guards employed on contract basis in Greater Bombay and Thane Industrial Complex. According to this survey, there were about 200 to 250 security agents and agencies operating in the said regions. Most of these agencies were not even registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. There was only one registered Union of the security guards in Greater Bombay and Thene Industrial Complex and that was the respondent-Union which claimed a membership of about 2,200 security guards. According to the claim made by the Union, there were about 70,000 security guards employed in various factories and establishments, etc. all over the said region. The survey was based upon the examination of 50 such agencies carrying on the work of supplying security guards. It was noticed from this sample survey that only 28% of the agents were extending the benefit of provident fund and the said benefit was available only to 45.38% of the total security guards covered by the survey. Similarly, only 7. 38% of the total security guards enjoyed the benefit of gratuity. Likewise, only 35 agents engaging 2792 security guards were covered by the Employees' State Insurance Scheme and only 8 agents engaging 1541 security guards had extended medical facilities to the security guards. As regards leave, out of 50 agents which were covered by the survey, 43 were giving weekly-offs with wages, 4 agents were giving weekly-offs without wages and the remaining 3 agents were not giving any weekly-offs whatsoever. Out of the 50 agents further, as many as 42 agents were not providing any casual leave to the security guards while the remaining 8 were giving some casual leave. Out of those who gave casual leave, 7 gave leave which varied between 6 to 10 days while the remaining one gave casual leave of 12 days. Out of the said 50 agents again, 6 were giving privilege leave between 11 to 15 days while one was giving between 16 and 20 days and 19 were giving over 20 days while the remaining 24 were not giving any privilege leave at all. As regards sick leave, 4 out of the said 50 agents alone were giving such leave and that varied between 5 to 10 days. As regards festival holidays, 10 agencies out of the said 50 were giving holidays upto 5 days, while 8 were giving 6 to 10 holidays and one was giving 11 to 15 days. The rest 31 were not giving any festival holidays at all.

6. As regards the other amenities and facilities, out of 150 sampled security _guards, only 6 had drinking water facility, only 42 had canteen -facility, only 16 had transport facility, only 4 were given accommodation and only 31 had rest sheds. Eleven of the said sampled security guards were not even provided with sanitary arrangements.

7. On the basis of this rapid sample survey, certain conclusions were drawn and recommendations were made in the report. According to these conclusions and recommendations, a majority of the security guards were in need of special legislative protection since they did not receive anything beyond a meagre wage of Rs. 264.72 per month on an average. It was also noted that most of these agencies were collecting from the employers substantially high amounts and pocketing the difference as their profits, and thus were carrying on a lucrative business in supplying human labour. The report also noted that some unscrupulous agencies also employed untrained persons without a background of security work. It was therefore necessary to stop exploitation of the unprotected security guards and to provide them with better service conditions. A recommendation was therefore made that a notification could be issued under the Mathadi Act so as to provide the security guards with the same facilities as the workers covered by the said Act. The report further noted that the State Government had earlier tried to abolish the contract labour system amongst the security guards in about 28 establishments in Greater Bombay and Thane Districts by issuing a notification under the Contract Labour Act. The same however was struck down by this Court on the ground that the notification issued was not a speaking order. Hence the reports suggested that the security guards should be covered under the provisions of the Mathadi Act by amending the Schedule of employment to which the said Act applied. The report also observed that a non-official Bill was introduced by member of the Legislative Council to cover security guards under the Mathadi -Act but the same was opposed by the State Government at that time because the Government was considering issuing a notification under the Contract Labour Act. Since this Court had struck down the notification so issued under the Contract Labour Act, it was felt that; that course was not quite satisfactory. The report therefore concluded that the only course open was now to amend the Schedule of the Mathadi Act so as to include the employment of security guards in the employments mentioned in the said Schedule. The report further stated that the only argument that could perhaps be put forth against the said proposal was that in case there was a strike in a factory or establishment where the security guards are sent for employment, the security guards may join hands with the workers and join their agitation as well. According to the report there was not much force in that argument because when they are covered by the Mathadi Act they would be under the control and subject to the discipline of the Board constituted under the Mathadi Act.

8. It is against the background of this report which is at page 113 of the Compilation, that the present legislation was placed on the statute book. This history of the legislation would broadly indicate the object of the legislation. It will now be convenient first to examine the provisions of the said Act. There is no statement of object and reasons freshly given while replacing the Ordinance by the said Act. Hence the statement of the objects and reasons which accompanied the Ordinance would form the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act as well. The said statement says that it was represented to the Government that there were about 70,000 persons working as Security Guards in various factories and establishments in Greater Bombay and in Thane Industrial Complex. Majority of them were provided by about 250 flourishing agencies operating in the said areas. However, the service conditions of the Security Guards were not satisfactory. Their services depended merely on the whim and sweet will of the agencies supplying them and they were being exploited and even removed arbitrarily from service on flimsy grounds. In many cases, the security guards received a small portion of the amounts recovered by the agencies from the employers and the balance was pockated by them. The Government had recently conducted a survey (to which I have already made a reference earlier) and the findings of the survey confirmed that there was a substantial truth in what was represented to the Government. The Government also noticed that the Security Guards were required to do not only the usual patrolling and watch and ward work but occasionally they were compelled to fight situations like thefts, assaults and fire. It was also noticed by Government that under the present system they were not entitled to any protection of the Labour Laws available to the other workers. In order therefore to ensure that the Security Guards in factories and establishments were not exploited and to make better provisions for their terms and conditions of employment and welfare, a separate representative Board was considered necessary by enacting a special law for the purpose on the lines of the Mathadi Act. This would also make it possible in due course to make recruitment of the Security Guards through the Board only.

106. In the first - instance, although it is true that some of the Agencies have their exclusive business in Greater Bombay and Thane areas, it is not correct to say that they will not hereafter be in a position to carry on their business of supplying Security Guards to factories and establishments outside Greater Bombay and Thane areas. The Act undoubtedly extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra and empowers the Government to bring it into force in any area on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazettee appoint in that behalf. For the present however, it is enforced only in Greater Bombay and Thane District on and from June 29, 1981. However, we will proceed on the basis that some of the Agencies having their exclusive business in Greater Bombay and Thane District are compelled to close down their business and also further that since the State Government has been empowered to cover all areas of the State, the Act has the potentiality of prohibiting the business of supplying Security Guards in any part of the State. The question therefore is whether such a prohibition of business is reasonable and in .the interests of the general public. As has been pointed out earlier, there are no less than 70,000 Security Guards at present employed through the Agencies in different factories and establishments in Greater Bombay and Thane District. There is further no dispute that the security work for which they are engaged is a regular work of the factories and establishments where they are employed and is not a work of an intermittent or casual nature. There is no material on record, further, to show that the Agencies give the Security Guards any special training for the job. The only role which the Agencies supplying Security Guards play is of the middlemen hiring the services of the Security Guards on a certain remuneration and in turn hiring them out to the employers at higher charges and appropriating the difference for themselves. This practice is nothing short of trafficking in human labour. On account of the large unemployment in the country, many able-bodied persons are available for selling their labour at competitively lower rates. The Agencies are in a position to exploit this situation and to quote competitive rates for hiring them. There is also a competition between the Agencies to supply the Security Guards at lower rates to the various employers. The employers find it economically advantageous to hire the services of the Security Guards through the Agencies, since they get them at low bargain-rates without any further responsibilities attached to them. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that most of the Security Guards are drawn from the ranks of the retired Army and police personnel who are fit only for the said job and who do not find any other ready employment. They are already trained for the security work and are forced to supplement their meagre retirement benefits by accepting any work. This inevitably leads to their exploitation at both ends. The hiring of Security Guards by the employers through the Agencies is therefore nothing but yet another instance of the contract labour system in operation with all the evils attendant upon it. For years together now there is a demand for abolition of contract labour system particularly in. trades, processes and occupations which are a regular and an integral part of the industrial and the commercial activity. It is with this view that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was placed on the Statute book by the Central Government as early as in 1970 to regulate the employment of Contract Labour in certain establishments and also to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances. The Act applies to every establishment in which 20 or more workmen are employed and to every contractor who employs 20 or more workmen. Section 10 of the Act enables the Government, Central or State as the case may be, to prohibit the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. The Act gives power to the appropriate Government to make rules for providing amenities and facilities such as canteens, restrooms, first aid, etc. and also to ensure payment of wages to the workers where the contract labour system is permitted. It also requires the contractors to obtain licences for doing the business of supplying contract labour. This Act with its provisions empowering the Government to abolish the contract labour system was held valid by the Supreme Court in a decision to which we have already made a reference earlier viz. Messers Gammon India Ltd. V. Union of India 24(Supra). What is more, a similar Act viz. the Mathadi Act, 1969 was enacted by the State Government and it applies to the whole of Maharashtra. The Act as its preamble shows, seeks to regulate the employment of unprotected manual workers employed in certain employments in the State. That Act has been held valid . by this Court. It may be mentioned that the Security Guards to whom the present legislation... relates. are covered by the Contract Labour Act. Under that Act the employment of the Security Guards on contract labour system can be prohibited by issuing a notification under Section 10 of the Act. In fact as stated earlier, a notification under that provision was in fact issued by the State Government. It was however invalidated by this Court on the ground that the Notification was not a speaking order. This attempt on the part of the State Government to prohibit the contract labour system in the employment of the Security Guards only highlights the need felt by the State Government to abolish the said system. The very same result could also have been achieved by an amendment of the schedule to the Mathadi Act by including in the employments mentioned therein the employment of the Security Guards. Instead of adopting either of the said two courses, the State Government thought it necessary to introduce an independent legislative measure to prohibit the contract labour system in the employment of the Security Guards and that is how the present legislation was born. It is therefore too late in the day to dispute the necessity of the measure on the ground that the measure is not a reasonable one or in the interests of general public.